I wish I could block IE users. They almost are more trouble than they
are worth. Luckily only about 20% of my users still use IE6. :p
Technically you can, not that I can understand why you would want to
block what is the most popular browser out there. My personal sites
stats show that IE make
]
Sent: jeudi 20 décembre 2007 14:26
To: Daniel Brown
Cc: Stut; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zoltán Németh; PHP General List
Subject: Re: [PHP] Just to confirm...
Bah! You're right, I changed it to just be an easter egg in the
code. The original (now commented out) was:
It initially st
From: Richard Heyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: jeudi 20 décembre 2007 14:26
To: Daniel Brown
Cc: Stut; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zoltán Németh; PHP General List
Subject: Re: [PHP] Just to confirm...
Bah! You're right, I changed it to just be an easter egg in the
code. The original (now com
From: Richard Heyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: jeudi 20 décembre 2007 14:26
To: Daniel Brown
Cc: Stut; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zoltán Németh; PHP General List
Subject: Re: [PHP] Just to confirm...
> Bah! You're right, I changed it to just be an easter egg in the
> code. The orig
On Dec 20, 2007 5:25 AM, Richard Heyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bah! You're right, I changed it to just be an easter egg in the
> > code. The original (now commented out) was:
> > > if(stristr($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'],"msie")) {
> > die("No friend of Internet Exploder is
Bah! You're right, I changed it to just be an easter egg in the
code. The original (now commented out) was:
It initially started to try to stop cURL, wget, Lynx, and other
automated clients from grabbing the content from the page. Again, I
know that headers can be spoofed, but that's
Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007 11:18 AM, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, December 19, 2007 9:31 am, Richard Heyes wrote:
> I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
> Reply-To header isn't worth beans.
very very true
>>> Well the Reply-To:
On Dec 19, 2007 12:26 PM, Stut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2007 11:18 AM, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, December 19, 2007 9:31 am, Richard Heyes wrote:
> > I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
> > Reply-T
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 11:18 AM, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, December 19, 2007 9:31 am, Richard Heyes wrote:
I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
Reply-To header isn't worth beans.
very very true
Well the Reply-To: header isn't for boun
On Dec 19, 2007 11:59 AM, Jim Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2007 11:18 AM, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, December 19, 2007 9:31 am, Richard Heyes wrote:
> > I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
> > Re
On Dec 19, 2007 11:53 AM, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007 11:18 AM, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, December 19, 2007 9:31 am, Richard Heyes wrote:
> > >>> I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
> > >>> Reply-To header isn't
On Dec 19, 2007 11:18 AM, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, December 19, 2007 9:31 am, Richard Heyes wrote:
> >>> I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
> >>> Reply-To header isn't worth beans.
> >>
> >> very very true
> >
> > Well the Reply-To: header isn't
On Wed, December 19, 2007 9:31 am, Richard Heyes wrote:
>>> I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
>>> Reply-To header isn't worth beans.
>>
>> very very true
>
> Well the Reply-To: header isn't for bounces.
The OP was asking about Return-path, not Reply-to
Furthermore, whil
2007. 12. 19, szerda keltezéssel 15.31-kor Richard Heyes ezt írta:
> >> I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
> >> Reply-To header isn't worth beans.
> >
> > very very true
>
> Well the Reply-To: header isn't for bounces.
yes, for that Return-Path: should be used
greets
Zol
On Dec 19, 2007 10:51 AM, Zoltán Németh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007. 12. 19, szerda keltezéssel 15.31-kor Richard Heyes ezt írta:
> > >> I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
> > >> Reply-To header isn't worth beans.
> > >
> > > very very true
> >
> > Well the Reply-To: h
Daniel Brown schreef:
> On Dec 18, 2007 10:01 PM, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, December 18, 2007 9:17 am, Richard Heyes wrote:
>>> Emails that bounce get sent back to the address in the Return-Path:
>>> header. Correct?
>> Depends on who is following which standards from whic
2007. 12. 19, szerda keltezéssel 09.56-kor Daniel Brown ezt írta:
> I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
> Reply-To header isn't worth beans.
very very true
greets
Zoltán Németh
>
> --
> Daniel P. Brown
> [Phone Numbers Go Here!]
> [They're Hidden From View!]
>
> If at f
I think that any MTA or client that doesn't work with the
Reply-To header isn't worth beans.
very very true
Well the Reply-To: header isn't for bounces.
--
Richard Heyes
http://www.websupportsolutions.co.uk
Knowledge Base and HelpDesk software
that can cut the cost of online support
** NOW
On Dec 18, 2007 10:01 PM, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, December 18, 2007 9:17 am, Richard Heyes wrote:
> > Emails that bounce get sent back to the address in the Return-Path:
> > header. Correct?
>
> Depends on who is following which standards from which era...
>
> There was a
On Tue, December 18, 2007 9:17 am, Richard Heyes wrote:
> Emails that bounce get sent back to the address in the Return-Path:
> header. Correct?
Depends on who is following which standards from which era...
There was an "Error-to:" header that was popular for awhile, and...
I don't think you can
On Dec 18, 2007 10:40 AM, Stut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Heyes wrote:
> > Daniel Brown wrote:
> >> On Dec 18, 2007 10:17 AM, Richard Heyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Emails that bounce get sent back to the address in the Return-Path:
> >>> header. Correct?
> >>
> >> Yes, sir.
>
2007. 12. 18, kedd keltezéssel 15.36-kor Richard Heyes ezt írta:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 2007 10:17 AM, Richard Heyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Emails that bounce get sent back to the address in the Return-Path:
> >> header. Correct?
> >
> > Yes, sir.
>
> Thanks. Is there u
Richard Heyes wrote:
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 10:17 AM, Richard Heyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Emails that bounce get sent back to the address in the Return-Path:
header. Correct?
Yes, sir.
Thanks. Is there usually a delay? Eg the mail server tries again after 4
hours.
D
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 10:17 AM, Richard Heyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Emails that bounce get sent back to the address in the Return-Path:
header. Correct?
Yes, sir.
Thanks. Is there usually a delay? Eg the mail server tries again after 4
hours.
--
Richard Heyes
http:/
On Dec 18, 2007 10:17 AM, Richard Heyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Emails that bounce get sent back to the address in the Return-Path:
> header. Correct?
Yes, sir.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
[They're Hidden From View!]
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know
25 matches
Mail list logo
